I think the hybrids fill a niche market. The niche between the needs of low and slow and hot and fast. They are capable of a little of both, but tend to be better at burning on the hotter side when compared to a pure cat stove from all I have seen and read. I am perfectly content getting 14-18 hour burns(stovetop above 300f) with my PH, and 6-8ish hour hot burns. If i went by a lower stovetop temp that could be easily 20 something hours for a max burn time. This is all with what most would consider marginal or poor quality wood. Heck If I went by some manufacturers definitions of burn time the PH would be probably around 24 hours(stove still warm and enough coals for a restart) I have no first hand experience with BK, so I am not sure how accurate the burn times are, but from that I have heard they are accurate.
Sure a BK might get 30ish hour burns, but i need more heat than that. There is still the same amount of btus in the wood, and it works better for me to get them in a shorter amount of time based on my climate. Obviously you can up the air, but then you arn't going to be getting 30 hour burn times.
For what its worth, and even if you don't believe the EPA numbers, they are facts regardless as the numbers are from real testing and arn't just pulled out of a hat.
Blaze King -Ashford 30 - 11,200-27,280btu/hr , actual measured efficiency 75% , emissions 0.97/gm hr
Travis Industries/Liberty- Cape Cod Hybrid- 10,749-39,413btu/hr, actual measured efficiency 80.1, emissions 0.45
Woodstock- Progress Hybrid- 12,538-73,171btu/hr, actual efficiency 81%, emissions 1.3gm/hr
All of the stoves above are around 3ct
So just going by the examples above, you can see that some of the hybrids have a much higher end burn rate, especially so for the PH and the IS. So i wouldnt exactly call that a failure. You can get a hot and high btu output fire if you want, or you can get a adequately low and slow burn. Is it as low and slow as a BK? No, not in every case, but where it makes up for it is with a higher end capability, and having the ability to do both. Sometimes I need that 70k+btu output, if i was only able to get 27kbtu out of my stove I would be having to run multiple stoves to heat my house.
I think BKs are great for milder areas, and I am sure there are plenty of them in the colder areas too, but i think where they really shine is those places where all you really need is that low and steady output without much need to go higher.
I personally like that my stove doesnt have a thermostat. One less thing to go wrong, I like simple. Some might not care, but that was a small selling point for me at least.
So i wouldn't call hybrids a failure simple because they do a little of both, and are a balance between the two technologies. I think there is something with designing a stove for a high heat output that cuts down on the ability to have a really low and slow controlled burn. Obviously, otherwise the IS, PH etc would be advertising BK burn times. Maybe if they ever put a thermostat on them it might improve. But as they are now, I think they serve their intended market--those who want the ability for a very high output burn, but also want to have a low and steady burn depending on the conditions